Advertisements

A Modest Proposal

We often hear the following, in many iterations and variations, from Darwinists:

Evolution is a fact.
Evolution is as well-established as the law of gravity.
Overwhelming scientific evidence proves that evolution is true.

“Evolution” is an ill-defined term. It can mean:

1) Change over time.
2) Common ancestry.
3) Random genetic errors filtered by natural selection as the purely materialistic mechanism that explains all of life’s complexity, information content, and information-processing machinery, not to mention human consciousness and its demonstrable creative intelligence.

Change over time is obvious and undeniable. Common ancestry seems reasonable to me, although universal common ancestry appears to be in big trouble with mounting evidence that Darwin’s unidirectional “tree of life” never existed. It might have been something more akin to a hologram than a tree, as far as I can tell.

What Darwinists really want us to accept — without question, dissent, annoying logical/evidential challenges, or apostasy — is definition 3), so let me make a modest proposal to substitute it for “evolution,” and reveal the Darwinian bait-and-switch scam.Random genetic errors filtered by natural selection as the purely materialistic mechanism that explains all of life’s complexity, information content, and information-processing machinery, not to mention human consciousness and its demonstrable creative intelligence is a fact.

Random genetic errors filtered by natural selection as the purely materialistic mechanism that explains all of life’s complexity, information content, and information-processing machinery, not to mention human consciousness and its demonstrable creative intelligence is as well-established as the law of gravity.

Overwhelming scientific evidence proves that random genetic errors filtered by natural selection as the purely materialistic mechanism that explains all of life’s complexity, information content, and information-processing machinery, not to mention human consciousness and its demonstrable creative intelligence is true.

My question to Darwinists: How can you be foolish enough, or arrogant enough, to make such transparently ludicrous claims and expect to be taken seriously?

38 Responses to A Modest Proposal

Excellent point, Gil. This “bait and switch” is precisely how the Darwinist side protects the uncritical teaching of “evolution” in public schools. They basically position all criticism of “evolution” as criticism of common ancestry, when in fact most of the opposition is to what they really mean (but rarely state) by “evolution”, your definition #3.

. . .A world-class scientist on the listserv claimed in the course of an unrelated debate that gravity was a fact, not a theory. This struck me as fundamentally wrongheaded, and it still does. It is, of course, a “fact” that unsupported objects fall. What explains this observable fact is the theory of gravity. Gravity is the theory; the falling object is the fact. The theory explains the fact, but the theory never becomes a fact.

This scientist was quite adamant on the point, going so far as to assert that we inquisitive laymen on this listserv should just take his word for it, since he is an expert and we aren’t.

I wondered at the time how such a universally acclaimed scholar in the sciences could make an error so elementary that even my freshmen logic students could see it, while also so blithely refusing to engage in constructive discussion. The recent Climategate scandal is instructive in this regard.

One sees the same lack of openness and intellectual rigor in the arrogance, stonewalling, name-calling, and apparently deliberate obfuscation that have characterized the response of some global warming/climate change supporters to the legitimate questions that have been raised by scientists and laymen alike.

Even those sympathetic to the claims of climate change scientists are ridiculed for asking honest questions. Such “Climate Deniers” are implicitly compared to the unbalanced and ignorant few who claim that the Holocaust never happened — i.e. “Holocaust Deniers.” Wikipedia even has an entry on “Denialism” (which has my vote for the silliest-sounding ad hominem attack ever).

This linguistic three-card Monte is made possible only via the same conflation of facts and theories in which my former colleague engaged. The climate is constantly changing. That is a fact. The notion that climate change is caused by human activities is a theory that seeks to explain the fact. By calling the theory a “fact,” climate change scientists have effectively foreclosed the possibility of further discussion. After all, only a fool argues about facts, right?

This seemingly obvious ruse has been surprisingly effective, and the whole business hinges on the words used. “Theories” are fair game for discussion and debate because these are simply frameworks within which facts are to be understood. “Facts,” conversely, just are what they are. Every reasonable person agrees that while we are all entitled to our opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts. Thus, in order to shut down the opposition without the bother of having to argue with them, the faux scientist need only redefine what a “fact” is. . . .

So beware the slight of hand (logic) by those who state that “evolution is a fact” rather than a theory!

. . .As the power of the technician waxes, that of the politician wanes, until he is little more than a rubber stamp.

Thereafter, differences of opinion are effectively banned. From the perspective of political technique and its practitioners, such dissent is nothing more than slander, lies, and deliberate distortion. The expression of differing opinions is dangerous, and it is thus no more justifiable than yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater. Just as the Second Amendment is not a license to bring an AR-15 on a tour of the White House, neither does the First Amendment allow one to tell deliberate untruths about something that the experts “know” to be true.

This bizarre new form of anti-intellectualism is most clearly seen today in the global warming/climate change arena. The thesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) demands obedience. The “consensus” of “experts” has coalesced around the ludicrous idea that the simple act of breathing, and thereby expelling CO2, can destroy the planet. Case closed.

Thus, there is no point in allowing further questions or debate. The experts have spoken. To put this in Ellul’s terms, “the one best means” of avoiding a fantasy apocalypse has been settled. The plebeians need to sit down, shut up, and open their wallets in order to bring to fruition what Thomas Sowell calls “the vision of the anointed.”

At this stage — in which we currently find ourselves — the technicians turn science against itself as part and parcel of a fascist enterprise that actively subverts and undermines the foundations of science itself. Once the basic (false) premise of “settled science” has been accepted, there is a certain perverse logic to it: “We already know the truth, so further discussion is not merely pointless; it is actively pernicious. All of those lying ‘Denialists’ are just trying to jiggle the lens of truth. The picture is clear, and they want to blur it. We must stop them. To let them continue to lie about the ‘settled science’ of AGW is to do a disservice to truth. After all, don’t those who love the truth oppose liars?”

Thus, shutting down debate by any means necessary is actually a virtuous, truth-preserving act.

This is what the sublimely gifted Dr. Sowell calls “lying for the truth.” . . .

Thomas Sowell is one of my (rare) heroes. He is superbly intelligent, insightful, and eloquent.

Once the great accomplishments of the scientific method enabled modern civilization with all its comforts, “science” became a new religion, and the “scientists” became the priesthood.

When one hears “scientists say” or “scientists all agree” he is expected to genuflect in submission before this priesthood. The only problem is that “scientists” are just as fallen as the rest of humanity, and cannot be trusted to tell the truth if the evidence might endanger their prestige, influence, or especially their research grants.

Whenever I see Thomas Sowell’s name comes up I have to respond. He is indeed a skilled writer and thinker. I have read “Vision of the Anointed” and “Conquests and Cultures” and found them both thoroughly worthwhile. But he drives me mad because he makes such a big thing of empirical evidence and objective analysis of relevant factors

Mistakes can be corrected by those who pay attention to facts but dogmatism will not be corrected by those who are wedded to a vision

and yet in his column and to some extent in his books he is often the opposite. He makes highly selective use of data, often way out of date, to support his case and often draws quite invalid conclusions.

A common example is when he writes about crime. For some reason, he is very fond of drawing lessons from crime in Britain. For example, in 2008 he wrote this article which was intended to show that keeping criminals in prison is cost effective because it is cheaper than having them commit crimes. It includes this quote:

“In Britain, the total cost of the prison system per year was found to be £1.9 billion, while the financial cost alone of the crimes committed per year by criminals was estimated at £60 billion.”

First. These figures were roughly accurate for the year 2000 – i.e. they were eight years out of date at the time of writing. Does he not have the time to look up the most recent figures? Later data is easily available on the internet. It is obvious what has happened. He is quoting from a favourite book of his “”A Land Fit for Criminals” by David Fraser and has not updated the facts in the book. (If he did he would find the cost of prison has doubled and the cost of crime has dropped about 10%).

But more to the point – these figures prove nothing! If you want to compare the cost of keeping someone in prison as opposed to the cost of the crimes they might commit then you obviously want costs/person not overall costs.

He may or may not have a point about the cost of prison – that’s not my gripe. It is the hypocrisy of making such a big thing about data and objectivity while being so sloppy himself.

This bizarre new form of anti-intellectualism is most clearly seen today in the global warming/climate change arena. The thesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) demands obedience. The “consensus” of “experts” has coalesced around the ludicrous idea that the simple act of breathing, and thereby expelling CO2, can destroy the planet. Case closed.

I see Daniel Fernald’s little diatribes are published in American Thinker which is appropriate as they typify a strand of anti-intellectual thinking prevalent amongst conservatives. Like the original post they are examples of the time-honored practice of beating up strawmen.

You will be hard put to find any, even amongst the most ardent pan-selectionists, who assert that “Random genetic errors filtered by natural selection” and only “Random genetic errors filtered by natural selection” are responsible for all the changes we observe. Even a strong adaptationist like Richard Dawkins can write:

There are, as I am well aware (“having more than a passing acquaintance with the modern synthesis, the neutral theory and the nearly neutral theory”), various important ways in which randomness enters into evolution, in addition to mutation. The most important does indeed follow from the neutral theory, which I have publicly supported in several of my books. Mutations can drift to fixation in a population for reasons other than natural selection, and that process could indeed properly be called random.

Equally, it is simply ludicrous to allege that climatologists have ever claimed that simply our breathing was going to destroy the planet. That will not prevent a significant part of the population from believing it, of course, which only goes to show that H L Mencken had a point when he observed that no one ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the people.

Nothing is likely to change, however. The frustrated demagogues of the right will continue to batter away at their imaginary villains and conspiracies. Meanwhile scientists will try to ignore the noise and continue to unravel the complex interplay of forces which are responsible for biological and climate change. At least, we must hope so because it is highly unlikely that philosophers will serve us any better in this regard.

That will not prevent a significant part of the population from believing it, of course, which only goes to show that H L Mencken had a point when he observed that no one ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the people.

People have lost elections by underestimating the intelligence of the people, and thereby lost lots of money that they spent on their campaigns. Your point of view is of course claptrap elitist nonsense that is part and parcel of a narrow worldview and a narrow experience set that is usually held by socially-inept atheistic shut-ins.

Seversky,
your comment drips with materialistic/atheistic dogmatism which puts you firmly in the camp of the “philosophers” which you disdained so much in your post:

“Meanwhile scientists will try to ignore the noise and continue to unravel the complex interplay of forces which are responsible for biological and climate change. At least, we must hope so because it is highly unlikely that philosophers will serve us any better in this regard.”

According to the implicit meaning of your comment Christians are not scientists. Thus according to your own “philosophically biased” reasoning, the founders of science themselves were not scientists since they devoutly believed in Christ.

Scientists of the Christian Faith: A Presentation of the Pioneers, Practitioners and Supporters of Modern Science:
Excerpt: A careful study of history reveals that technology and modern science was, in fact, pioneered by Christians. The case is made by Dr. Ian Hutchison and Dr. Loren Eiseley (below) and at the essays found at the subsequent links.http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm

But let me ask seversky, since you seem so sure of yourself that “science” has established Darwinism as well as gravity (where is that graviton by the way?), do you mind citing just one example of functional information generation that is above and beyond the functional information that was already present in a bacterium?

What your comment actually reflects, Seversky, is a deep animosity towards Christians in spite of what the “science” is telling us of the complexity of life that dwarfs our puny understanding. Why is this? Do you think it beyond any reason whatsoever that a man should rise from the dead? And why should this particular proposition be considered any less reasonable, any less miraculous, than say the proposition of the fact that you are alive, breathing, and thinking, right now. I find the fact that I am actually alive to be a great surprise, wonder, and even yes, a audacious miracle. That I, within my life, have been forced to face the fact, in dramatic fashion, that this life is not forever and that death looms for each of us, came as a affront to reason and was the root cause of much sadness and despondence in me. Indeed why should such a miraculous gift, as life clearly is, have to cease from being for me or for my loved ones? The best for me to do, at that stark realization of death’s relentless grip, was to eat and drink to excess for tomorrow I surely died. A condition and pattern of living that led to further heartbreak needless to say. Yet in a moment of despair, when my life was brought low once again by my excess for drink, a glimpse of the miraculous caught the corner of my eye as I sought Christ to find relief from a certain predicament. I was shattered to my core. Over and over the realization of what had happened in that moment struck me,,, Miracles really do occur! and God is really real!!! And to find that through further study and reflection on these matters that Christ has indeed overcome death, not to be a source of irritation as you seem to feel it is, but instead to be a source of great joy and a immensely great relief. A relief releasing me from the predicament with death I had found myself in at the start of it all. The predicament at the prospect of losing this miracle of life that was such a great surprise and joy in the first place.

If you are interested Seversky, the History Channel has a new documentary on the Shroud at 7pm central tonight.

Sorry Seversky, the anti-intellectual, anti-science crowd is now on your side. All the computer models on which global warming hysteria were based have been empirically invalidated. They all predicted the exact opposite of what has happened in the last 10 years. Yet, we are told that although their short-term predictions were wrong, we can trust that their long-term predictions can be relied upon.

In any other area of hard science this kind of claim would be immediately dismissed as delusional.

In the arena of Darwinian evolution: Simple combinatorial mathematics, which every well-educated person should have learned in junior high school, immediately invalidates the hypothesis that chance and selection can produce anything but the utterly trivial, even given the most optimistic assumptions about available probabilistic resources.

I think Seversky prefers the brand of intellectualism these days that mislead the masses and socialist political engineers like Al Gore.

Use our tax dollars for the purpose of keeping their pet projects alive and putting more power into the hands of few psuedo-intellectualist and political powers.

While the masses slave away to serve the bureaucrat that follows blindly scientism. Where skewered data is missing, faulty models do not predicte reality from year to year or decade and fail to provide all the data to other qualified scientist trying to ascertain the truth.

This type of wonderful system as we know it is Marxist combined with totalitarian humanist thinkers.

Remember: They are the ones they’ve been waiting for. The gods who can stop the oceans from rising that follow puppets which believe they are the solution to all the worlds problems if only the ignorant will get out of the way.

To bad, these psuedo intellectuals are now “bombing innocent women in children in Pakistan and Afghanistan.”

We’ve seen this “logic” instituted in China, Russia, Cuba, etc. It gave us Lysenkoism from the Communist. And Michael Moore’s propaganda flick on Cuba’s wonderful healthcare. It builds up lie after lie so scientism, marxism and idiot leaders believe themselves the only valid thinkers of society. Damn liberty, damn freedom and damn free market solutions that gave rise to the greatest inventions, cures, and technology on earth.

Example of Cuba’s real socialist healtcare mecca that people around the world seek:

Take time, look at pictures of filth, feces and reality of the Intellectuals idea: Michael Moore, Sean Penn,

“anti-intellectuals” lol… this is clueless “agit-prop” from an extremist idealogue, that refuses to look at histroic failures and deceptions of climate-gate “scientist.” That fail to see the need for intervention into scientism ultra-elites manipulative scheming and outright lies.

A scheme that wasted billions by poorly run “intellectual” group of fascist thinkers.

Throw away “American Thinker” and you still have the deception and ripoff of tax payor dollars that should send these scum to jail, or at very least cost them all their jobs. They should be ashamed to even put their heads into a lab or university on this planet.

Going down the wabbit hole showed to what depth the so-called “intellectuals” will go to lie and deceive “anti-intellectuals.”

In my world, such behavior is considered criminal. But I’m just an “anti-intellectual” lol.

Oh Lordy, these backwards hicks must be from Alabama? Who would dare to quote European media? Unless they’re comparing it to American elite media. Oh wait… that would take thinking. Obviously, American Thinker is unable to comprehend. They just need to listen to Al Gore, Katie Couric, those super intellectuals at the Today Show like Matt Lauer and Michael Moore.

Where is Oliver Stone when you need him and a conspiracy movie about the stolen data of Climate “Intellectual” Science? What? He’s down in Cuba? Visiting Fidel and celebrating intellectual communism? Of course, lucky guy. To bad we anti-intellectuals just don’t get it, or we could be there as well sucking in the red light moonbattery of gods like Fidel and Che.

Can we please have another propaganda film from Moore? Moore, please Moore… with cupped hands, on bended knees. I beggeth thee oh Master of preening super Intellectuals. Give us moore please.

LOL… so funny, if not so real. That billions are lost, our media is lost, indeed biased loooking the other way that is most likely the biggest SCAM of the last decade.

I believe climate studies is a huge business, over 80 billion in the US alone in the last 20 years. And Western Europe has contributed tens of billions more. There are a lot of scientists sucking at the teat of AGU. Do you expect any of them to dissent from the party line? Essentially climate scientists as well as a lot of other scientists have become whores to the government largesse. There is no way one will get an honest study in such a “climate.”

I believe climate studies is a huge business, over 80 billion in the US alone in the last 20 years.

Where are you getting that figure? Annual support for climate change research has been less that $2 billion a year until now. The FY2011 request is $2.56 billion for climate change research, and that is 21% increase over the previous year.

jerry, here are some totals: from 1989-2009, that’s 21 years, US climate change funding was a total of 32 billion in actual dollars and 39 billion in adjusted dollars (rounded up or down to the nearest billion).

I don’t think that’s a lot, because real research (unlike think-tank and lobbying work) is expensive.

To borrow Irving Kristol’s prescription, “Our goal should be to have biology and evolution taught in a way that points to what we don’t know as well as what we do.” I would only add that it would help if we could get the science educators to define that word “evolution” precisely and use it consistently. ~ Phillip Johnson

Here’s a question for everyone: when is it rational NOT to believe an expert? That’s a difficult one. The following is a (by no means exhaustive) list of “warning signs” which indicate that what an expert says may be open to legitimate doubt:

(1) The question in dispute relates to a single discipline, in which the known facts are dwarfed by the unknowns, as much remains to be discovered. In that case, even if the expert knows a LOT more than you do, he/she is about as much in the dark as you are.
(Here’s a concrete mathematical illustration: if you know 0.01% of everything that could be known in the relevant field, and the expert knows 100 times more than you do, that’s still only 1%, which means that he/she is 99% in the dark, while you are 99.99% in the dark. That’s not much of a difference.)

(2) The question in dispute relates to a single discipline, in which the relevant uncertainties have not been adequately quantified.

(3) The question in dispute relates to a single discipline, in which the predictions made by the dominant scientific model are based on mechanisms whose causal adequacy to generate the effects predicted has not been established – in other words, where the capacity or efficacy of the mechanisms has not been adequately quantified.

(4) The expert makes a claim which strikes you as prima facie outrageously implausible, but is unable to demonstrate that the dominant scientific model upon which he/she relies is adequate to support that claim – in other words, the expert can’t prove to you that his/her model is at least capable of getting you from X to Y.

(5) The question in dispute relates to a single discipline, in which the predictions made by the dominant scientific model are highly sensitive to the initial assumptions which are input, so that a tiny revision in these assumptions dramatically alters the predictions made by the model.

(6) The question in dispute relates to a single discipline, in which the predictions appear to accord well with the data, but the mechanics of the phenomenon itself are poorly understood, so that the currently accepted model, while plausible, is not necessarily the only possible way of explaining the phenomenon – in other words, another model may supplant it in the future.

(7) The question in dispute relates to multiple disciplines, in several of which you have a limited degree of expertise, whereas the expert you are listening to has a great deal of expertise in just ONE of these disciplines.

(8) The expert in question has a track record of making bad judgements on other subjects with which you are familiar, and most of these judgements tend to betray a common cognitive blind-spot.

(9) The expert in question is very dogmatic about his/her claim, even though other experts in the same field have contrary opinions, or are considerably less certain about the claim.

(10) The claim itself appears to be ideologically motivated to some degree – i.e. it is accompanied by snide put-downs of alternative world-views which are held by many people, but not by the expert.

(11) The expert has been financially rewarded or has obtained fame or promotion by promoting his/her claim, but would not have been so rewarded had he/she promoted a contrary claim.

(12) The expert’s claim is asserted hotly and with great vehemence, accompanied by moral indignation and/or contempt towards those who question or reject the claim.

Can anyone think of any other warning signs? If so, please feel free to add to the list.

As an exercise, readers might like to check the boxes for neo-Darwinian evolution (as opposed to common descent) and the hypothesis of dangerous anthropogenic global warming.

Regarding global warming, I think it’s best to be prepared. Personally, I’m skeptical that anthropogenic global warming is likely to be dangerous on a global scale over the next 100 years. But of course, I could be completely wrong. The good news is that even if anthropogenic global warming does pose a real threat to the biosphere, we have a feasible action plan that won’t cost the earth, that won’t line the pockets of the bureaucrats, and that will solve all our energy problems:

But Gil, the “Missing Link” was just discovered. Didn’t you see Barry’s post about the new skeleton that was found? Judging from the hoopla and headlines you’d think we just discovered the existence of extra-terrestial life. If evolution is as “well established as the theory of gravity”, then the hoopla over these fossil finds is like saying “Look, another apple fell off a tree and went straight to the ground. Gravity is CONFIRMED!” Clearly something is amiss (or, perhaps, just missing!)

People have lost elections by underestimating the intelligence of the people, and thereby lost lots of money that they spent on their campaigns. Your point of view is of course claptrap elitist nonsense that is part and parcel of a narrow worldview and a narrow experience set that is usually held by socially-inept atheistic shut-ins.

I think that comment speaks for itself.

I note however you did not address my two main points, which is that not only is Fernald a member of this despised intellectual elite – his Amazon profile lists three degrees in philosophy – although nothing in climatology or meteorology – but he practiced what he was preaching against by that absurd claim about climatologists saying that our breathing would destroy the earth.

According to the implicit meaning of your comment Christians are not scientists. Thus according to your own “philosophically biased” reasoning, the founders of science themselves were not scientists since they devoutly believed in Christ.

My view has always been that scientists can belong to any religion they choose but they must leave that faith at the laboratory door if they want to be true to their science. They have to accept that any conflict between their beliefs and their research shall be decided by the evidence.

Yet in a moment of despair, when my life was brought low once again by my excess for drink, a glimpse of the miraculous caught the corner of my eye as I sought Christ to find relief from a certain predicament. I was shattered to my core. Over and over the realization of what had happened in that moment struck me,,, Miracles really do occur! and God is really real!!! And to find that through further study and reflection on these matters that Christ has indeed overcome death, not to be a source of irritation as you seem to feel it is, but instead to be a source of great joy and a immensely great relief.

I am glad you were able to find such relief.

My view is that religion has survived and flourished for so long in part because it offers precisely what you found. It provides enormous comfort, support and strength in times of great personal crisis in a way that nothing else can and I would never try to deprive anyone of that.

Unfortunately, that does not necessarily make it true and, as I see it, the evidence for it is weak at best.

What I object to, however, is not the support religion can provide but the fact that people fall for the temptation of trying to impose that faith on others because, for them, it is some sort of Absolute Truth. What is common between both believers who have committed atrocities in the name of their faiths and atheists who have done the same in the name of some secular ideology is this belief that they are in possession of some Absolute Truth. Agnostics do not fly planes into skyscrapers but devout Muslims did. Skeptics do not purge societies of their enemies, send them to rot in gulags or drive them out into “killing fields” but communists did.

There is a strand of vehement, self-righteous, almost swaggering Christianity in this country that I find deeply offensive. If I were still Christian I would feel the same since it seems to me to be totally at odds with the love, humility and compassion which I was taught were Christian virtues. I accept that this is far from true of all Christians but it is something that does the faith no favors in the eyes of others.

Well Seversky,,, should you not find it interesting that science was birthed through men of devout Christian faith, instead of mandating that the faith “should be left at the door”? I find it very peculiar that you do not question exactly why it is that men who profess Christ strongly would be exactly the ones who should be so instrumental in bringing forth such a profound understanding of the truth of this reality into this world. Why were the atheists of their day and culture, of which there were many, not able to do so? I find this very peculiar, especially since atheists are adamant that they are always the ones who are the most “scientific” in their views. Myself I personally find atheists to be the most dogmatic in their faith to the overwhelmingly falsified philosophy of materialism and truly do with they would leave their faith at the door. As far as the founders of science leaving their faith at the door as they conducted their investigations, I can assure that the founders did not do so, and were keen that they were gaining a greater understanding of God. Principia by Newton being a prime example of probably the greatest scientific work ever written being ripe with references to God throughout.:

“I want to know the thoughts of God. Everything else is just details.” Albert Einstein

etc..etc..

Besides all this seversky the scientific evidence by itself, invalidates the materialistic philosophy, you are stuck with as an atheist/skeptic, and validates the Theistic philosophy. I really sorry that you fell away from the faith because of not being loved enough, or by some self-righteous bigot, but when you say:

“Skeptics do not purge societies of their enemies, send them to rot in gulags or drive them out into “killing fields” but communists did.”

That is just utter nonsense. i.e skeptics, your code word for atheism, were responsible for more blood spilt during peacetime, in their own societies in the 20th century than were lost by all wars combined up to that point!

The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression:
Excerpt: Essentially a body count of communism’s victims in the 20th century, the book draws heavily from recently opened Soviet archives. The verdict: communism was responsible for between 85 million and 100 million, non-war related, deaths in the century. (of note: this estimate is viewed as very conservative by many, with some more realistic estimates passing 200 million dead) (Of Note: Atheistic Communism is defined as Dialectic Materialism)http://www.amazon.com/Black-Bo.....0674076087

Seversky why do you not find the inhumanity that atheists have inflicted on society more appalling than the much less horror that renegade Christians have inflicted. Is not the beam in your atheist eye much greater than the speck in the Christian theist eye?

Well Seversky,,, should you not find it interesting that science was birthed through men of devout Christian faith, instead of mandating that the faith “should be left at the door”?

Except if you look at the research conducted by these men, you will not find religion mentioned. There are references to God in Newton’s work, for example, but are no terms for God or ‘here there be miracles’ in Newton’s or Maxwell’s equations. Acknowledging God and their faith was expected of them in those times so yes, they were men of faith but they were also men of science who, in practice, kept the two separate.

Besides all this seversky the scientific evidence by itself, invalidates the materialistic philosophy, you are stuck with as an atheist/skeptic, and validates the Theistic philosophy.

Name one scientific discovery or technological advance that is not based on the assumption of a physical universe. For good or ill, contemporary civilization is a monument to the success of materialistic science. What irks believers is that this success has been won without any need of their hypothesis.

Skeptics do not purge societies of their enemies, send them to rot in gulags or drive them out into “killing fields” but communists did.

That is just utter nonsense. i.e skeptics, your code word for atheism, were responsible for more blood spilt during peacetime, in their own societies in the 20th century than were lost by all wars combined up to that point!

We have been over this ground before.

First, ‘skeptic’ and ‘atheist’ are not the same. A skeptic is one who doubts and is equally likely to be stood up against a wall and shot by either theocratic or atheist zealots.

Second, straight body counts are misleading. We have reasonably reliable figures for the millions killed by atheist regimes in the twentieth century. The numbers are progrssively less reliable for those killed in religious conflicts over the last 5,000 years, say.

Third, the human population was much larger in the twentieth century compared with earlier times. There were just more people available to kill.

Fourth, modern means of killing large numbers quickly and efficiently were not available in earlier times. Does anyone doubt that, if modern weaponry had been available in olden times, the body counts would have been much higher. Just imagine what the Crusaders and Muslims would have done to each other with firearms given half a chance.

Seversky,
What motivated these founding scientists was a drive to know God more fully! Again I ask you why the atheistic skeptics did not discover such truths? You insinuate atheists were not around at the time. I beg to differ.

Christianity and the Birth of Science
Excerpt: Furthermore, many of these founders of science lived at a time when others publicly expressed views quite contrary to Christianity – Hume, Hobbes, Darwin, etc. When Boyle argues against Hobbe’s materialism or Kelvin argues against Darwin’s assumptions, you don’t have a case of “closet atheists.” etc.. etc..http://ldolphin.org/bumbulis/

I can tell that you did not even view this following video for your reasoning is exactly the same reasoning a “skeptic” presented to Stephen Meyer in a court of law (your insistence they kept their religion and science separate is false!).

“Name one scientific discovery or technological advance that is not based on the assumption of a physical universe. For good or ill, contemporary civilization is a monument to the success of materialistic science.”

I would say that close to 100%, if not 100%, of all breakthroughs in science have been driven to find ORDER within the material/physical universe. Yet the fatal flaw with materialism, and what you so innocently overlooked, as well as the primary reason men of materialistic faith (atheists/skeptics) are notably absent from the honor role of founding scientists, is because they presume no underlying order to the material universe, for to presuppose order is to presuppose a mind that gave that order, materialism presupposes order to “randomly emerge” from a material basis! I would think this should be crystal clear to you or do you care to defend otherwise?

Seversky, if you are a materialist, as you admit, and you don’t believe in God, as you admit, YOU ARE AN ATHEIST period. Lying to me as well as to yourself that you are merely a skeptic is ludicrous!

The rest of your post is excuses and rationalizations for the bloodshed at the hands of atheism with scarcely a solid note of reasoning to lay hold of, and yet even if your rationalizations were completely true, as to the cruelty inflicted by Christians, would not this in reality testify to the fact we humans are in pitiful state of falleness with a desperate need for us all to be redeemed by God through Christ?

Seversky, just to make this interesting please provide your formal proof that materialism is true.

I’ll do you one better. I’ll see your false peer-reviewed journals, false models that failed to predict the last decade and several years, the data that is lost, mismanaged and cannot be found to uphold the false models and false peer-reviewed papers.

You gave links as if any associated with those organizations agreed with global warming scam?

Lets look at how science was done
by the global warming scam artist…

Email of Mr. Phil Jones:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

Phil Jones (Climatic Research Unit)
University of East Anglia”

Golly gee Composer. If you live by this as science, then I’ll sell you swamp land just beside Phil Jones’s lovely cottage.

LOL… “HIDE THE DECLINE” How pathetic, that billions was spent on a bunch of lies. But this is what you get when scientific opposition is oppressed and the radicals take over scientific projects to manipulate the outcome.

What a farce. You could tell me the entire world of experts believed this and what would it matter? They were all going off of falsified data, false models and liars, hacks and cheats who refused to share their data. These people should be fired, lose their tenure and never set foot again in receiving any kind of grant money from tax payors.

But Unicorn Utopian dreams are selling big these days in the Marxist hallways of psuedo-intellectuals.

Pardon me, not “psuedo-intellectuals” but outright Frauds. Whatever science these frauds did in the past is long gone. They should be stripped of their doctorates, any certifications and disallowed in any climate project.

The scam has created even more scams, upon more scams as the universities hustle to “Hide the Decline” of their integrity, scientific methodology, their golden boy wonders that brought billions in grants, and their shame of dishonest dealings among each other to scam the entire world.

These actions to defraud an entire nation and the world that could cost us Trillions of dollars, should be a criminal offense. At these levels of funding and lost money, it should be a felony. They should serve time. The universities should be responsible for paying back the grants to American treasury, to reimburse We the People for their epic failure to police these criminals.

This should not be limited to some “university review panel” This is outright fraud and anyone in the private sector would face overwhelming lawsuits, etc., and possible jail time.

Here is some “anti-intellectual” reporting for you and people like Seversky that refuse to acknowledge the criminal wrong done to our nation, our students, and American tax payors.

Another lovely quote from the above WashTimes link from an “intellectual” and global warming enthusiast Phil Jones:

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” professor Phil Jones wrote in reference to a 2004 journal article by Mr. McKitrick. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

What a fraud, what an “intellectual” thug. What a failure by “scientific peer-reviewed” journals and by fellow scientist and worse, now universities are participating in Climate-Gate cover-ups.

LOL… mmmmm… tasty social engineering “intellectuals.” Cass Sunstein must be so proud of these frauds. The once former Global Cooling Kook that foresaw and warned of earths doom by global cooling, is now the “intellectual” on Global Warming side today, along with another outstanding “intellectual,” fired Green Czar and Communist Van Jones.

LOL… yes, they represent the “intellectuals” that Seversky looks up to that disagree with American Thinker. But wait, we’re not allowed to oppose them are we? The Numero Uno “Intellectual” may decide UnCommon Descent should not be listened to by Americans.

correction: replace Cass Sunstein with White House Science Czar John Holdren. He predicted Global Cooling, or more accurately “ecocide” lol… a new ICE AGE. And he recommended population control in the 1970s. He is preaching similar social engineering causes today with the twist of Global Warming.

So hard to keep up with all these “intellectuals” now days. So many Marxist, Communist and Socialist popping up like moles since the 60s radicals went underground.

Sunsteins the guy that wants to give animals the right to bring law suits against people.